I'm really surprised here.Wish I had the guts to put my name and emai down... but, you know. I KNOW lots of people in astronomy. They'd balk at what I just said.After all these years, the industry is just a "pick and shovel" affair. It's horrendous where it is going at the moment.Customer Support? Are you kidding me?

I have to agree with the previous poster. There is far too much shoddy merchandise for sale in the world of telescopes. Image having to buy a camera or a washing maching at an reasonably affordable price, and then have to pratically rebuild it before it was even useable! Or, if it wasn't fixable, having to return it again and again until you got a functioning sample! The shoddy merchandise amateur astronomers put up with would NEVER be tolerated in any other industry. I know this has nothing to do with the AP scope in question, but as long as this subject was raised, it deserves attention. I don't know what to do about it other than saving my money and dreaming of the day I can afford this telescope...

The first time ever in the history of histories that I have seen someone say out loud, loud and fucking clear that telescopes are basically run by a bunch of businessmen making money out of the unprepared. Do you need to be prepared? What is this, a crash course in flying without a parachute?

Unless you can afford it, and the time to maintain it, don't buy a telescope.

The fact that the events themselves are 1 in 100 at any one point on the surface of the planet, pretty much makes me see that unless - as the last author has stated - you can afford a Takahashi or AP, you're in for a rough ride with support. I've never seen ANY scope come to what you SHOULD expect from this detracted industry. If hubble can't build enough interest in the fucked-up world we live and present it to us, you think the garbage being made is going to make a difference? It sure isn't making much of a stance on my interpretation of it.

It's definitely a self learning curve and stuff you if you have problems (seen from the perspective of the manufacturer).

I was tempted to move in astronomy, I'm getting grey hairs for starters, but right now, I don't have time for this "churn out the crap" for budding astronomers with less than 10,000 in their bank account to actually spend in one go.I know of one individual who is hooked on it - I understand this, so does everyone else, I know why you all do it too - but the subjective aspect to it is that it's kind of like being unable to pull away from the idea that you could "see so much more" if you "just shove this thing onto it", having paid several thousand on it just for the OTA.

The whole thing is a bloody minefield.

In 5 years, I'll definitely consider something like a Takahashi. I've looked through one directed at Saturn, and it's fair to say that it "changed me" in a way I can't describe. As ludicrous as it may sound.

I didn't get that from ANY telescope I've encountered so far.

This is the problem with atronomy. Unless you're incredibly rich, you are basically blind to it. Unless you are also incredibly patient and don't care about money, it'll also make you very small and poor.

Hey, nice language. You don't need a telescope. You need a good counselor. How about not clogging this site up with incessant whining. JCD.
>The first time ever in the history of histories that I have seen someone say out loud, loud and fucking clear that telescopes are basically run by a bunch of businessmen making money out of the unprepared. Do you need to be prepared? What is this, a crash course in flying without a parachute?
>
>Unless you can afford it, and the time to maintain it, don't buy a telescope.
>
>The fact that the events themselves are 1 in 100 at any one point on the surface of the planet, pretty much makes me see that unless - as the last author has stated - you can afford a Takahashi or AP, you're in for a rough ride with support. I've never seen ANY scope come to what you SHOULD expect from this detracted industry. If hubble can't build enough interest in the fucked-up world we live and present it to us, you think the garbage being made is going to make a difference? It sure isn't making much of a stance on my interpretation of it.
>
>It's definitely a self learning curve and stuff you if you have problems (seen from the perspective of the manufacturer).
>
>I was tempted to move in astronomy, I'm getting grey hairs for starters, but right now, I don't have time for this "churn out the crap" for budding astronomers with less than 10,000 in their bank account to actually spend in one go.
>I know of one individual who is hooked on it - I understand this, so does everyone else, I know why you all do it too - but the subjective aspect to it is that it's kind of like being unable to pull away from the idea that you could "see so much more" if you "just shove this thing onto it", having paid several thousand on it just for the OTA.
>
>The whole thing is a bloody minefield.
>
>In 5 years, I'll definitely consider something like a Takahashi. I've looked through one directed at Saturn, and it's fair to say that it "changed me" in a way I can't describe. As ludicrous as it may sound.
>
>I didn't get that from ANY telescope I've encountered so far.
>
>This is the problem with atronomy. Unless you're incredibly rich, you are basically blind to it. Unless you are also incredibly patient and don't care about money, it'll also make you very small and poor.

Celestron G-5

I just got my new G5. It arrived in good shape cosmetically, however upon inspecting the OTA I discovered that the corrector was defective/off center. The edge of the corrector is actually exposed on the top/center of it's cell with a slight opening there. I could slide a piece of paper through this gap into the inside of the OTA if I wanted to! The mount was easy to assemble but is very poorly designed. All the prior concerns about the mount mentioned earlier on this site are confirmed here in addition to others. In the past 2 years I've purchased 5 scopes. Of those 5, 3 were lemons ; a Meade ETX 90, a Parks 8" newtonian and this G5. The Meade was promptly replaced by my local dealer(now out of business) with a good one. The Parks was my most expensive lesson in the astro school of hard knocks, I'm still rebuilding it. Now I'll find out firsthand about Celestron's customer service. After I do, I'll report back here with the results and my comments on the scope's performance. I've looked through a lot of scopes, read a lot of reviews and done a lot of research on astro equipment and I have learned that 1; unless you can afford a Takahashi or other ultra high end scope, buying a telescope is like a box of chocolates with a lot of those ones with the pink centers in it. 2; It helps a great deal if you own some tools and are handy with them (and have lots of extra time to tinker with, fix, rebuild your scopes, etc...). 3; Most telescope manufacturers are extremely inconsistent as to product quality.

I have had my G-5 for almost two years now, and really like it. Can see GRS on Jupiter, also many cloud bands. Saturn looks good, Cassinni all the way around, shadows, and some bands at times. Some features on Mars if seeing is decent. Will split double-double cleanly, does a nice job on globs. As others have stated, dec knob collides with ra or motor drive near zenith- I mounted tube 180 degrees, so dec knob is under tube- much better. Shaky tripod, I keep mine low and use the suppression pads from Celestron. Dew shield is a must. Finder is so-so, I added a Rigel Quikfinder to help. I also put a big rubber grommet on the focus knob. This allows me to adjust focus with light finger tip pressure, more precise and doesn't shake the telescope as much. Had to collimate when I first got it, but no other problems. My diagonal seems fine, same views with or without. I keep this telescope set up in my living room. I can put it outside and set it up in about five minutes, go eat supper while it cools, and go outside and do some viewng. Very nice views and easy to use for not a lot of money.

I Havbe had this scope for two years now. The first one I received had the loose corrector plate problem. I dealt with Celestron twice back and forth, did not accept their repair the first time and they sent me a new one. Also the EQ head had a problem. They promptly sent me a new one. Although you might expect Do It Right The First Time, I'm happy with the final results. Thanks Celestron. This compact little scope never ceases to amaze me. I've jostled it around in my van a few times so I've had to collimate it several times. It's easy to tell when it needs it, performance drops off dramatically. But when it's on, I've viewed doubles at 250x and sometimes 333x and I've seen the 13th mag star just outside the Ring Neb after getting collimation dead on. Although lately I haven't been able to see the F component in the trapezium. Maybe I need another tweak. This scope stays set up and is easily carried out thru any doorway and across the street into a dark field. All viewing is done comfortably from a bar stool. Saturn is a fantastic sight, better with a 7.5 Ultima at 167x than with a 5 at 250x. But clearly see Cassini and color in the rings. Cloud swirls appear on Jupiter. Clearly the best viewing nights are few and far between and I have been out there on those nights when viewing reaches superlative. Fantastic views and great portability have made me forget all about problems that were very well taken care of. See also my review of my new scope CR150, not nearly as portable as this great little scope.ed z

I have had this scope since Christmas, when I got and, utterly disappointed, returned a Meade ETX90. Was convinced by a sales guy who uses this scope "all the time" that this would do it for me. And I must say, he was right. It's the first scope for my son and I and we are having a blast learning about the sky, finding objects, and being together (he's 7). Its extremely portable (I leave it set up in the garage so its instantly ready for us to take to the yard) and learning how to use it was a breeze. The mount is not the best, as others have said, but the images are superb. I thought about trading up to a bigger aperture but have been hesitant because of the high quality views we get - the next scope may not be so good! I've added a TV diagonal, some Ultima eyepieces and 2xBarlow, and you have to upgrade the finder to a 8x50, and on a clear night, even in the burbs, we get breathtaking views of Orion nebula - the first sight of that caused my son to say, " Wow - I love science Dad",and don't we all live for moments like those? I may get a bigger scope, but its hard to imagine a better, more easily usable package than this.

I've owned and used the scope for about 9 months now, and am VERY pleased with it, but I've still got a lot to learn about using it, and I still have a lot more things I want to look at with it. But that means that I will continue to get pleasure from this scope for a long time.

It is very portable, and easy to set up and polar align, although it did take a while for me to learn how. A problem is that if you lift the scope and mount by grasping the equatorial head, the tripod legs can slip downwards slightly if the bolts connecting the legs to the mount aren't tight. Once I made sure that the head was as far down on the legs as it could go and the bolts were tight, setting up was a breeze: First, (one time adjustment only) make sure the polar axis is set to the right elevation, using the pointer and included scale. Then, after moving to the observing site, extend the legs and level the mount by using a $3.99 hardware store spirit level placed on the accessory tray. North align by using a compass (knowing your magentic deviation from true north), or by lining up on the north star, and start the motor. Objects stay in the field of view long enough for visual use even with an allignment as rough as I have just described.

The motor controls work nicely. I did have to make a modification in the drive (described above) in order to keep the motor engaged, but that was such a simple tweak that I don't think it counts. I did upgrade the diagonal, and I added an Orion EZ finder, which makes using the supplied 6x30 finder easier to use. The combination is much better than either one separately. I have bought some extra eyepieces (a TV 32mm Plossl) and an 18mm ortho and the Celestron 2x Ultima Barlow. This stable of eyepieces give me a range of powers and fields of view that are all that I could ask for.

The mount is stable enough for 250x, although I usually don't go higher than 140x. (Seeing is not always good enough for the highest powers, and I have yet to get out to a really dark sky with this scope.) Although this is my first "commercially" bought scope, and not the biggest I have had, I will say that its combination of optics, mechanical construction make it the most enjoyable scope I have ever used. And even factoring in the extra money I put in to the upgrades, I think that it is a super scope for the money spent.

I bought my G5 one and a half months ago and I've managed 13 nights of observing. This is the first telescope I've owned and so far I really have few complaints. Like others have mentioned here, the standard mount is the feature that brings satisfaction just below 100% for me. If I could change the way I purchased the telescope I would buy the OTA separately and find a solid, secure mount somewhere else.

In spite of this issue (no $700 scope package will be perfect), I am really enjoying the G5. The standard eyepiece was sort of ho-hum, so I found a deal on two Plossl's to expand my viewing options (12.5 and 40 mm). With Jupiter and Saturn right overhead relatively early in the evening there is always something to get started with -- then it's time to pick a star cluster and let time bring out the detail.

I suppose I'm a little lucky that my telescope arrived in perfect working order considering the number of people who had a different experience. As for quality concerns...the instument works great now and if it stops working great then Celestron will be hearing from me until it's fixed.